ReportWire

Tag: viral infections

  • The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    [ad_1]

    Some 24 years ago, Diana Bianchi peered into a microscope at a piece of human thyroid and saw something that instantly gave her goosebumps. The sample had come from a woman who was chromosomally XX. But through the lens, Bianchi saw the unmistakable glimmer of Y chromosomes—dozens and dozens of them. “Clearly,” Bianchi told me, “part of her thyroid was entirely male.”

    The reason, Bianchi suspected, was pregnancy. Years ago, the patient had carried a male embryo, whose cells had at some point wandered out of the womb. They’d ended up in his mother’s thyroid—and, almost certainly, a bunch of other organs too—and taken on the identities and functions of the female cells that surrounded them so they could work in synchrony. Bianchi, now the director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, was astonished: “Her thyroid had been entirely remodeled by her son’s cells,” she said.

    The woman’s case wasn’t a one-off. Just about every time an embryo implants and begins to grow, it dispatches bits of itself into the body housing it. The depositions begin at least as early as four or five weeks into gestation. And they settle into just about every sliver of our anatomy where scientists have checked—the heart, the lungs, the breast, the colon, the kidney, the liver, the brain. From there, the cells might linger, grow, and divide for decades, or even, as many scientists suspect, for a lifetime, assimilating into the person that conceived them. They can almost be thought of as evolution’s original organ transplant, J. Lee Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, told me. Microchimerism may be the most common way in which genetically identical cells mature and develop inside two bodies at once.

    These cross-generational transfers are bidirectional. As fetal cells cross the placenta into maternal tissues, a small number of maternal cells migrate into fetal tissues, where they can persist into adulthood. Genetic swaps, then, might occur several times throughout a life. Some researchers believe that people may be miniature mosaics of many of their relatives, via chains of pregnancy: their older siblings, perhaps, or their maternal grandmother, or any aunts and uncles their grandmother might have conceived before their mother was born. “It’s like you carry your entire family inside of you,” Francisco Úbeda de Torres, an evolutionary biologist at the Royal Holloway University of London, told me.

    All of that makes microchimerism—named in homage to the part-lion, part-goat, part-dragon chimera of Greek myth—more common than pregnancy itself. It’s thought to affect every person who has carried an embryo, even if briefly, and anyone who has ever inhabited a womb. Other mammals—mice, cows, dogs, our fellow primates—seem to haul around these cellular heirlooms too. But borrowed cells don’t always show up in the same spots, or in the same numbers. In many cases, microchimeric cells are thought to be present at concentrations on the order of one in 1 million—levels that, “for a lot of biological assays, is approaching or at the limit of detection,” Sing Sing Way, an immunologist and a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told me.

    Some scientists have argued that cells so sparse and inconsistent couldn’t possibly have meaningful effects. Even among microchimerism researchers, hypotheses about what these cells do—if anything at all—remain “highly controversial,” Way said. But many experts contend that microchimeric cells aren’t just passive passengers, adrift in someone else’s genomic sea. They are genetically distinct entities in a foreign residence, with their own evolutionary motivations that may clash with their landlord’s. And they might hold sway over many aspects of health: our susceptibility to infectious or autoimmune disease, the success of pregnancies, maybe even behavior. If these cells turn out to be as important as some scientists believe they are, they might be one of the most underappreciated architects of human life.

    Already, researchers have uncovered hints of what these wandering cells are up to. Way’s studies in mice, for instance, suggest that the microchimerism that babies inherit during gestation might help fine-tune their immune system, steeling the newborn body against viral infections; as the rodents age, their mother’s cells may aid in bringing their own pregnancies to term, by helping them see the fetus—made up of half-foreign DNA—as benign, rather than an unfamiliar threat.

    Similarly, inherited microchimerism might help explain why some studies have found that people are better at accepting organs from their mother than from their father, says William Burlingham, a transplant specialist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In the early ’90s, Burlingham treated a kidney-transplant patient who had abruptly stopped taking his immunosuppressive medications—a move that should have prompted his body’s rejection of the new organ. But “he was doing fine,” Burlingham told me. The patient’s kidney had come from his mother, whose cells were still circulating in his blood and skin; when his body encountered the transplanted tissues, it saw the newcomers as more of the same.

    Even fetal cells that meander into mothers during pregnancy might buoy the baby’s health. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, thinks that these cells may position themselves to optimally extract resources from Mom: in the brain, to command more attention; in the breast, to stimulate more milk production; in the thyroid, to coax more body heat. The cells, he told me, might also fiddle with a mother’s fertility, extending the interval between births to give the baby more uninterrupted care. Fetal delegates could then serve as informants for future offspring that inhabit the same womb, Úbeda de Torres told me. If later fetuses don’t detect much relatedness between themselves and their older siblings, he said, they might become greedier when siphoning nutrients from their mother’s body, rather than leaving extra behind for future siblings whose paternity may also differ from theirs.

    The perks of microchimerism for mothers have been tougher to pin down. One likely possibility is that the more thoroughly embryonic cells infiltrate the mother’s body, the better she might be able to tolerate her fetus’s tissue, reducing her chances of miscarriage or a high-risk birth. “I really think it’s a baby’s insurance policy on the mom,” Amy Boddy, a biological anthropologist at UC Santa Barbara, told me. “Like, ‘Hey, don’t attack.’” After delivery, the cells that stick around in the mother’s body may ease future pregnancies too (at least those by the same father). Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia become rarer the more times someone conceives with the same partner. And when mothers send cellular envoys into their babies, they might be able to cut Mom a break by upping a child’s sleepiness, or curbing their fussiness.

    Microchimerism may not always be kind to moms. Nelson and others have found that, long-term, women with more fetal cells are also more likely to develop certain kinds of autoimmune disease, perhaps because their children’s cells are mistakenly reassessed by certain postpartum bodies as unwanted invaders. Nelson’s former postdoctoral fellow Nathalie Lambert, now at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, has found evidence in mouse experiments that fetal microchimeric cells may also produce antibodies that can goad attacks on maternal cells, Lambert told me. But the situation is also more complicated than that. “I don’t think they’re bad actors,” Nelson said of the interloping fetal cells. She and her colleagues have also found that fetal cells might sometimes protect against autoimmunity, leading a few conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, to actually abate during and shortly after pregnancy.

    In other contexts, too, fetal cells might offer both help and harm to the mother, or neither at all. Fetally derived microchimeric cells have been spotted voyaging into the cardiac tissues of mice who have experienced mid-pregnancy heart attacks, settling the pancreases of newly diabetic mouse moms, and lurking inside human tumors and C-section scars. But scientists aren’t sure whether the foreign cells are causing damage, repairing it, or simply bystanders, discovered in these spots by coincidence.

    These questions are so difficult to answer, Way told me, because microchimeric cells are so challenging to study. They might be in all of us, but they’re still rare, and frequently hidden in tough-to-access internal tissues. Researchers can’t yet say whether the cells actively deploy to predetermined sites or are pulled into specific organs by maternal cells—or just follow the natural flow of blood like river sediments. There’s also no consensus on how much microchimerism a body can tolerate. In a vacuum of evidence, even microchimerism researchers are steeling themselves for a letdown. “A very large part of me is prepared to think that most if not all microchimerism is completely benign,” Melissa Wilson, a computational evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University, told me.

    But if microchimeric cells do have a role to play in autoimmunity or reproductive success, the potential for therapies could be huge. One option, Burlingham told me, might be to infuse organ-transplant patients with cells from their mother, which could, like tiny ambassadors, coax the body into accepting any new tissue. Microchimerism-inspired therapies could help ease the burdens of high-risk pregnancies, Boddy told me, many of which seem to be fueled by the maternal body mounting an inappropriately aggressive immune response. They might also improve the experience of surrogates, who are more likely to experience pregnancy complications such as high blood pressure, preterm birth, and gestational diabetes. The cells’ stem-esque properties could even help researchers design better treatments for genetic diseases in utero; one research group, at UC San Francisco, is pursuing this idea for the blood disorder alpha thalassemia.

    Before those visions can be enacted, some questions need to be resolved. Researchers have unearthed evidence that microchimeric cells from different sources might sometimes compete with, or even displace one another, in bids for dominance. If the same dynamic plays out with future therapies, doctors may need to be careful about which cells they introduce to people and when, or risk losing the precious cargo they infuse. And, perhaps most fundamental, scientists can’t yet say how many microchimeric cells are necessary to exert influence over a specific person’s health—a threshold that will likely determine just how practical these theoretical treatments might be, Kristine Chua, a biological anthropologist at UCSB, told me.

    Even amid these uncertainties, the experts I spoke with stand by microchimerism’s likely importance: The cells are so persistent, so ubiquitous, so evolutionarily ancient, Boddy told me, that they must have an effect. The simple fact that they’re allowed to stick around for decades, while they grow and develop and change, could have a lot to teach us about immunity—and our understanding of ourselves. “In my mind, it does alter my concept of who I am,” Bianchi, who herself has given birth to a son, told me. Although he’s since grown up, she’s never without him, nor he without her.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Someday, You Might Be Able to Eat Your Way Out of a Cold

    Someday, You Might Be Able to Eat Your Way Out of a Cold

    [ad_1]

    When it comes to treating disease with food, the quackery stretches back far. Through the centuries, raw garlic has been touted as a home treatment for everything from chlamydia to the common cold; Renaissance remedies for the plague included figs soaked in hyssop oil. During the 1918 flu pandemic, Americans wolfed down onions or chugged “fluid beef” gravy to keep the deadly virus at bay.

    Even in modern times, the internet abounds with dubious culinary cure-alls: apple-cider vinegar for gonorrhea; orange juice for malaria; mint, milk, and pineapple for tuberculosis. It all has a way of making real science sound like garbage. Research on nutrition and immunity “has been ruined a bit by all the writing out there on Eat this to cure cancer,” Lydia Lynch, an immunologist and a cancer biologist at Harvard, told me.

    In recent years, though, plenty of legit studies have confirmed that our diets really can affect our ability to fight off invaders—down to the fine-scale functioning of individual immune cells. Those studies belong to a new subfield of immunology sometimes referred to as immunometabolism. Researchers are still a long way off from being able to confidently recommend specific foods or dietary supplements for colds, flus, STIs, and other infectious illnesses. But someday, knowledge of how nutrients fuel the fight against disease could influence the way that infections are treated in hospitals, in clinics, and maybe at home—not just with antimicrobials and steroids but with dietary supplements, metabolic drugs, or whole foods.

    Although major breakthroughs in immunometabolism are just now arriving, the concepts that underlie them have been around for at least as long as the quackery. People have known for millennia that in the hours after we fall ill, our appetite dwindles; our body feels heavy and sluggish; we lose our thirst drive. In the 1980s, the veterinarian Benjamin Hart argued that those changes were a package deal—just some of many sickness behaviors, as he called them, that are evolutionarily hardwired into all sorts of creatures. The goal, Hart told me recently, is to “help the animal stay in one place and conserve energy”—especially as the body devotes a large proportion of its limited resources to igniting microbe-fighting fevers.

    The notion of illness-induced anorexia (not to be confused with the eating disorder anorexia nervosa) might seem, at first, like “a bit of a paradox,” says Zuri Sullivan, an immunologist at Harvard. Fighting pathogenic microbes is energetically costly—which makes eating less a very counterintuitive choice. But researchers have long posited that cutting down on calories could serve a strategic purpose: to deprive certain pathogens of essential nutrients. (Because viruses do not eat to acquire energy, this notion is limited to cell-based organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and parasites.) A team led by Miguel Soares, an immunologist at the Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, in Portugal, recently showed that this exact scenario might be playing out with malaria. As the parasites burst out of the red blood cells where they replicate, the resulting spray of heme (an oxygen-transporting molecule) prompts the liver to stop making glucose. The halt seems to deprive the parasites of nutrition, weakening them and tempering the infection’s worst effects.

    Cutting down on sugar can be a dangerous race to the bottom: Animals that forgo food while they’re sick are trying to starve out an invader before they themselves run out of energy. Let the glucose boycott stretch on too long, and the dieter might develop dangerously low blood sugar —a common complication of severe malaria—which can turn deadly if untreated. At the same time, though, a paucity of glucose might have beneficial effects on individual tissues and cells during certain immune fights. For example, low-carbohydrate, high-fat ketogenic diets seem to enhance the protective powers of certain types of immune cells in mice, making it tougher for particular pathogens to infiltrate airway tissue.

    Those findings are still far from potential human applications. But Andrew Wang, an immunologist and a rheumatologist at Yale, hopes that this sort of research could someday yield better clinical treatments for sepsis, an often fatal condition in which an infection spreads throughout the body, infiltrating the blood. “It’s still not understood exactly what you’re supposed to feed folks with sepsis,” Wang told me. He and his former mentor at Yale, Ruslan Medzhitov, are now running a clinical trial to see whether shifting the balance of carbohydrates and lipids in their diet speeds recovery for people ill with sepsis. If the team is able to suss out clear patterns, doctors might eventually be able to flip the body’s metabolic switches with carefully timed doses of drugs, giving immune cells a bigger edge against their enemies.

    But the rules of these food-illness interactions, to the extent that anyone understands them, are devilishly complex. Sepsis can be caused by a whole slew of different pathogens. And context really, really matters. In 2016, Wang, Medzhitov, and their colleagues discovered that feeding mice glucose during infections created starkly different effects depending on the nature of the pathogen driving disease. When the mice were pumped full of glucose while infected with the bacterium Listeria, all of them died—whereas about half of the rodents that were allowed to give in to their infection-induced anorexia lived. Meanwhile, the same sugary menu increased survival rates for mice with the flu.

    In this case, the difference doesn’t seem to boil down to what the microbe was eating. Instead, the mice’s diet changed the nature of the immune response they were able to marshal—and how much collateral damage that response was able to inflict on the body, as James Hamblin wrote for The Atlantic at the time. The type of inflammation that mice ignited against Listeria, the team found, could imperil fragile brain cells when the rodents were well fed. But when the mice went off sugar, their starved livers started producing an alternate fuel source called ketone bodies—the same compounds people make when on a ketogenic diet—that helped steel their neurons. Even as the mice fought off their bacterial infections, their brain stayed resilient to the inflammatory burn. The opposite played out when the researchers subbed in influenza, a virus that sparks a different type of inflammation: Glucose pushed brain cells into better shielding themselves against the immune system’s fiery response.

    There’s not yet one unifying principle to explain these differences. But they are a reminder of an underappreciated aspect of immunity. Surviving disease, after all, isn’t just about purging a pathogen from the body; our tissues also have to guard themselves from shrapnel as immune cells and microbes wage all-out war. It’s now becoming clear, Soares told me, that “metabolic reprogramming is a big component of that protection.” The tactics that thwart a bacterium like Listeria might not also shield us from a virus, a parasite, or a fungus; they may not be ideal during peacetime. Which means our bodies must constantly toggle between metabolic states.

    In the same way that the types of infections likely matter, so do the specific types of nutrients: animal fats, plant fats, starches, simple sugars, proteins. Like glucose, fats can be boons in some contexts but detrimental in others, as Lynch has found. In people with obesity or other metabolic conditions, immune cells appear to reconfigure themselves to rely more heavily on fats as they perform their day-to-day functions. They can also be more sluggish when they attack. That’s the case for a class of cells called natural killers: “They still recognize cancer or a virally infected cell and go to it as something that needs to be killed,” Lynch told me. “But they lack the energy to actually kill it.” Timing, too, almost certainly has an effect. The immune defenses that help someone expunge a virus in the first few days of an infection might not be the ones that are ideal later on in the course of disease.

    Even starving out bacterial enemies isn’t a surefire strategy. A few years ago, Janelle Ayres, an immunologist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and her colleagues found that when they infected mice with Salmonella and didn’t allow the rodents to eat, the hungry microbes in their guts began to spread outside of the intestines, likely in search of food. The migration ended up killing tons of their tiny mammal hosts. Mice that ate normally, meanwhile, fared far better—though the Salmonella inside of them also had an easier time transmitting to new hosts. The microbes, too, were responding to the metabolic milieu, and trying to adapt. “It would be great if it was as simple as ‘If you have a bacterial infection, reduce glucose,’” Ayres said. “But I think we just don’t know.”

    All of this leaves immunometabolism in a somewhat chaotic state. “We don’t have simple recommendations” on how to eat your way to better immunity, Medzhitov told me. And any that eventually emerge will likely have to be tempered by caveats: Factors such as age, sex, infection and vaccination history, underlying medical conditions, and more can all alter people’s immunometabolic needs. After Medzhitov’s 2016 study on glucose and viral infections was published, he recalls being dismayed by a piece from a foreign outlet circulating online claiming that “a scientist from the USA says that during flu, you should eat candy,” he told me with a sigh. “That was bad.”

    But considering how chaotic, individualistic, and messy nutrition is for humans, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the dietary principles governing our individual cells can get pretty complicated too. For now, Medzhitov said, we may be able to follow our instincts. Our bodies, after all, have been navigating this mess for millennia, and have probably picked up some sense of what they need along the way. It may not be a coincidence that during viral infections, “something sweet like honey and tea can really feel good,” Medzhitov said. There may even be some immunological value in downing the sick-day classic, chicken soup: It’s chock-full of fluid and salts, helpful things to ingest when the body’s electrolyte balance has been thrown out of whack by disease.

    The science around sickness cravings is far from settled. Still, Sullivan, who trained with Medzhitov, jokes that she now feels better about indulging in Talenti mango sorbet when she’s feeling under the weather with something viral, thanks to her colleagues’ 2016 finds. Maybe the sugar helps her body battle the virus without harming itself; then again, maybe not. For now, she figures it can’t hurt to dig in.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • We Still Don’t Know What Fundamentally Causes Canker Sores

    We Still Don’t Know What Fundamentally Causes Canker Sores

    [ad_1]

    A canker sore—a painful white ulcer inside the mouth—might be brought on by stress. Or the wrong toothpaste. Or certain foods: tomatoes, peanuts, cinnamon. Or an iron deficiency. Or an allergy. Or a new prescription. Or an underlying autoimmune disease.

    Even though millions of people suffer from them every year, researchers still don’t know much about what fundamentally causes these sores. This leaves doctors and dentists stuck playing detective with their patients—running down a checklist, trying to figure out which of more than a dozen potential triggers could’ve set off the gnarly little lesions.

    That list is long and spans different specialties in medicine. It includes trauma to the mouth, stress, diet, genetics, hormones, allergies, vitamin deficiencies, autoimmune diseases, and gastrointestinal diseases. Diana V. Messadi, a professor at the UCLA School of Dentistry, told me that canker sores are multifactorial, which makes them hard to study. Cold sores, by comparison, offer a much tidier story: They’re viral infections (herpes simplex) and thus are treatable with antivirals. (Cold sores are pimplelike blisters that usually form around the lips, whereas canker sores are white ulcers that occur inside the mouth.)

    Canker sores can be loosely sorted into two buckets. In Bucket A are the smaller, more common sores, the kind a person might get two or three times a year. These sores are bright, nagging, and painful, and they make eating and talking difficult. They usually aren’t life-threatening. In Bucket B are larger cankers, usually more than a centimeter wide. (Technically, a third bucket exists that includes herpetiform, or clustered, sores—but this type is rare.)

    Big or small, some sores are linked to an underlying disease, like Crohn’s, Behçet’s, HIV/AIDS, or celiac disease. In a way, these cases are better understood: The sores are a secondary effect of something else going on in the body—something a doctor can test for and identify.

    The human mouth is a weird place. Canker sores occur in what’s called the oral mucosa, which is doctor-speak for the skin (it’s not actually skin) inside your mouth. Even though the mucosa is tucked away inside your cheeks, it gets exposed to a lot. Salsa, notes Nasim Fazel, a former professor at UC Davis who started the college’s oral-mucosal clinic, “is a chemical irritant. You don’t rub salsa on your skin.” But people do eat salsa—and chips, nuts, and other foods that are spicy or acidic or sharp, and that can damage the lining of the mouth. Some of these wounds later develop into canker sores.

    Because the mouth is dirty, white blood cells like to hang out there; Andres Pinto, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University’s school of Dental Medicine, told me that this way, they can react quickly to a potential infection. But sometimes, this surveillance system fails, and the body can actually self-injure. This is thought to be part of what causes typical canker sores, Pinto explained: Immune dysregulation is the “common denominator” behind the ulcers. Inflammation can help the body heal, but too much inflation can cause the mucosa to break down, which is what we see when we look at the oval-shaped wounds.

    Beyond that, canker sores are still idiopathic, meaning doctors don’t really know why they happen. The body’s immune system is deeply complicated; as my colleague Ed Yong wrote in 2020, it’s where “intuition goes to die.” “The problem with all these immune-mediated conditions, oftentimes, is we still don’t know why they come,” Alessandro Villa, the chief of oral medicine at the Miami Cancer Institute, told me. “At the end of the day, it’s still a big mystery.”

    Another lingering mystery is why some people get canker sores while others live in ignorant bliss, free of their specific kind of torture. Genetics is starting to help solve that one. “Using sophisticated computers, we can actually detect which genes are associated with what we see in the mouth,” Pinto told me. “What I just said is a big step,” he added. “It took probably 30 years to develop that last sentence.”

    More research is needed to better treat patients, especially those with bad or chronic sores. Topical steroids can help, but they don’t address the underlying causes. A spokesperson for the FDA told me there are no available FDA-approved prescription options specifically for canker sores.

    Comparatively speaking, the United States does not have a lot of providers that specialize in this area. Fazel, formerly of UC Davis, is a rare combination of dentist and dermatologist who sometimes sees patients with debilitating cases. “I’m kind of using the same meds as I was using 10 years ago,” she told me. “It’s kind of sad.”

    Oral-medicine specialists are dentists with extra training in such ailments. But only about 400 practice in the United States, Pinto estimated. A representative for the American Academy of Oral Medicine told me the organization currently has 281 active members (although it noted that there may be additional nonmembers practicing). Fazel, for her part, thinks dermatologists are better equipped to treat canker sores, because dentists “can’t prescribe the big guns.” (The “big guns,” in this case, are medicines that modulate the immune system to calm inflammation.) Even if a patient does manage to see the right provider, that’s only the first step. They’ll still need to go through the checklist, trying to determine what their triggers are—while the bigger question of what actually causes the sores remains unknown.

    [ad_2]

    Caroline Mimbs Nyce

    Source link